building work without consent

On 7 Dec 2005 13:43:50 -0800, a particular chimpanzee named abracad snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Indemnity policies are there to protect the solicitors from being sued by you.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula
Loading thread data ...

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:51:37 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named "Peter Taylor" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

A prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act has to be brought in the Magistrate's Court. IIRC in the Magistrate's Court Act (or similar) a case can't be brought more than 6 months after the date of the offence, and IIRC case law has taken the date of the offence to be when the illegal work was carried out, not when it was discovered. The upshot being, unless the prosecution can prove otherwise, if someone says that the work had been carried out more than 6 months prior, any prosecution would be likely to fall at the first hurdle.

In S36 of the Building Act, the Local Authority can serve a notice on the person carrying out the work to pull down or rectify the offending work, but only within 12 months of it being carried out. An injunction can be requested of the High Court, but these are IME very rare and would only be for serious breaches. There are continuing powers for dangerous buildings, and for means of escape from buildings of three or more storeys, as well as powers under other legislation (of which I know little).

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

Hugo Nebula posted

Does this really mean that, once a built structure has been in place for a year, it is effectively immune from any legal proceedings? By heavens, the solicitors have managed to keep that quiet.

Reply to
PeteM
[PeteM] :

Immune from action relating to Building Regs non-compliance. Planners have a longer reach.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

Thank you Hugo, you old Baboon ;o)

Reply to
Peter Taylor

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:15:45 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named PeteM randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Indeed. Thank Cod that all solicitors are honest and truthful, otherwise they could make a fortune selling worthless indemnity policies to those poor saps who used their services.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

Are you talking about building regs? I was told by the BCO at the council that they could force me to rectify something I had done a few years before without consent. This was when I checkup up at the time I was selling my house. This was a blanket statement as they had no specific details at the time.

In the end the house was bought by a builder who was happy with the situation as he was going to make further mods anyway and would sort it all out then.

MBQ

Reply to
manatbandq

There's an interesting article on the RICS website here:

formatting link
about a case where a firm of solicitors failed to properly investigate the Building Regs history on a property and had to cough up damages. Apparently this is the reason why solicitors now take such care about it. The interesting bit concerning this thread is that "as time had expired (12 months s36 (4)) for action to be taken by the local authority under s36 (1) and s36 (2) of the Building Act 1984, they took action under the little used s36 (6) injunction proceedings, which has no such time bar."

I'm not clear what s36(6) states, and what action can actually be taken under the "injunction proceedings", but it would seem there is still a threat of legal proceedings beyond 12 months if you do break the law.

Peter

Reply to
Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor posted

Yes, but the risk of a rebound means that local authorities are apparently very reluctant to use it except in extreme cases. A Google search throws up comments from various LAs; for example rhis from

formatting link
: "Section 36(6) of the Building Act expressly provides that nothing in the section shall affect the right of a local authority ? to apply for an injunction for the removal or alteration of offending work. This is the option of last resort given the risk to the Council of costs being awarded against it. Where a contravention occurs on site and the building work has been undertaken in accordance with plans, which were deposited and passed by the Council, the court on granting an injunction has power to order the local authority to pay compensation to the owner of the work."

It seems unlikely that an ageing but unapproved toilet or loft conversion would provoke such a response. There are so many other things for LAs to worry about.

I'd be interested to hear if it ever has done, though.

Reply to
PeteM

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:16:43 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named PeteM randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I've not heard of one being taken out in fifteen years as a BCO, certainly none in the authorities I've worked for.

If it were used, it would only be for a serious breach of the technical requirements. I certainly wouldn't bring a case for the installation of a WC. I doubt it would be brought for a loft conversion unless it seriously affected the structure of the building (such as removing the struts from the centre of roof trusses) or was a complete death trap (no enclosed escape route and no alternative escape windows), and even then, only if the person was not willing to upgrade the loft or make it safe.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

Looking at it from your angle Hugo, you're absolutely correct. But that doesn't coincide with the way the courts see it. The question is not really about whether law-breakers will be prosecuted by the Local Authority; it's more to do with conveyancing solicitors (and their PI insurers) feeling edgy about being sued if they don't investigate vendors' statements thoroughly.

So, to put this is in context with this thread, you're not going to be prosecuted by the Local Authority for buying a house with a non-approved 2nd toilet. However, knowing this to be the case you could get into hot water if you tell a different story to a solicitor when you come to sell it.

Peter

Reply to
Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor posted

It's not so much how the courts see it either, I think: but how solicitors see it. I think they see it as a traditional device for extracting money out of conveyancing.

The issue is not so much about thorough investigation, but what you do with the facts once you have got them. Purchasers' solicitors often make a big song and dance about building work that didn't get BR approval. But how often do they tell their clients that the only realistic danger

- a local authority notice - can't happen if the building is 12 months old or more? I even wonder how many of them know it. I didn't until this thread.

Reply to
PeteM

I'd be more concerned about whether the work would have met building regs approval rather than the chances of regulatory action. I wouldn't pay extra for a house with a loft conversion with poor insulation and 3" joists, as the work will be of unsatisfactory quality.

Whilst a building regs certificate is the best evidence of whether the build was well executed, I'd also be happy with a report from a building surveyor.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

I don't think you read the report of the court case I posted. A solicitor was found negligent for not thoroughly investigating the untrue answers given by a vendor and had to pay damages equalling the cost of rectifying the unapproved work. That's why conveyancers now take the issue so seriously. But you're probably right that they never explain there's virtually zero chances of the council taking legal action, but then you can't expect solicitors to be upfront when they can see £ signs, can you?

Reply to
Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor posted

You're right, I didn't - sorry.

It'd be interesting to know more about this case. In particular, "as time had expired for action to be taken by the local authority under s36 (1) and s36 (2) of the Building Act 1984, they took action under the little used s36 (6) injunction proceedings, which has no such time bar." I would love to know how the local authority came to take out an injunction in 1993 in respect of alterations that had taken place

*eight* years earlier, under a different owner? Who told them about the works? What exactly were the defects to justify such action? When did legal proceedings begin? Were proceedings already in process when the property was sold?

I think they always have done.

Reply to
PeteM

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.